NUT-JOB

WHAT IS ART? (II)

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (Feb. 21, 8:47AM)

“… I fail to see even the slightest hint of even experimental value in this ‘experiment,’ let alone any artistic talent.”

I’ve just come over from “Logic 101” where I resolved certain logical cramps to check out the latest on “Nut Jobs.” I think Stephen has raised an interesting point which requires, in my pedantic fashion, greater scrutiny. The question boils down to this: Does Stephen’s failure to see any value or talent in the frozen cube of the boyfriend’s sperm invalidate it as art? Stephen seems to think so, but must his view prevail?

In my previous post (“What is Art?”) I raised the question whether the girlfriend’s view of the frozen cube of her boyfriend’s sperm as having more than ordinary significance validated it as art. Assuming that it would have more than ordinary significance for the girlfriend, particularly if the frozen cube of sperm still retained its generative qualities, how is the dilemma between the girlfriend and Stephen to be resolved? This is a difficult question.

If art is just a matter of subjective opinion then either anything can count as art if one person claims that it is or, alternatively, nothing can count as art if one person claims that it is not. Or is it a matter of majority vote? But where does this leave the frozen cube of sperm? Some may say it doesn’t matter, that the question as to what is art is just a matter of opinion or taste and one opinion or taste is as good as any another. But is this true? Or is there a higher “court of appeal” where conflicting views such as Stephen’s and the girlfriend’s might be adjudicated and if so, on what basis does this higher court of appeal rest its authority?

Is such authority knowledge-based? But this presupposed that art has a “cogitive core” which itself is open to question. On the other hand, is the authority of the court of appeal based on some form of artistic insight possessed only by the “adepts” and if so, is this insight coherently explicable to the rest of us? Or is what to count as art culturally determined, that is, what is art for one culture may not be art for another. Does this mean that art is irredeemably fragmented along cultural lines? But where does this leave the girlfriend, Stephen, and that lonely little cube of frozen sperm?

Anyway, I hope you have enjoyed reading this post as much as I have writing it. I have explained why I have enjoyed writing posts in general on “Logic 101” and will not repeat it here.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHAT IS ART? (III)

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (Feb. 21, 1:51PM)

“I think you’re really scraping the bottom of the philosophical barrel, trolling sarcastic posts.”

Well, Stephen, I’m sorry you think I’m scraping the bottom of the philosophical barrel and trolling sarcastic posts. (An interesting metaphor, Stephen, the “philosophical barrel,” but I won’t pursue it here.) Anyway, as I mentioned over on “Logic 101” I do enjoy spoofing the questions but, and this is important Stephen, I also mentioned that any worthwhile spoof must have its serious side to give it an “edge” if you take my meaning. So as far as the question “WHAT IS ART? (II)” goes, I can tell you now that I was on the “serious side.”

If you want my honest opinion Stephen, and it seems you clearly do, I think that since art reflects the culture in which it is found – that is why, in my opinion, much of oriental art is meaningless for the occidental observer – the current confusion regarding art reflects the current state of our cultural confusion generally. I think we are in a period of cultural transformation in which previous certainties, whether philosophical, religious, political, and so on, are undergoing fundamental change, and perhaps not for the better. Put differently, we live in a secular, populist, materialist, utilitarian and competitive milieu in which the criteria of artistic forms of whatever sort become vague and ill-defined. Many claim that art itself is irrelevant. So this leaves us with the original question, the artistic status of the cube of frozen sperm.

While I do not think the cube of frozen sperm constitutes art, I also think it is difficult to say just why it doesn’t. I don’t think that just anything constitutes art but I think it is equally difficult to draw the line dogmatically between art and non-art. Perhaps in order for something to be generally accepted as art a certain cultural dogmatism is required and this is just what we currently lack, at least in any homogeneous form. I guess whatever one defines as art is ultimately a function of one’s philosophical perspective but, of course, such perspectives are not monolithic, are not universally accepted or even perhaps generally shared. And, of course, many do not even know of what their philosophical perspective consists or even, for that matter, that they have one at all. In sum, Stephen, I think we live in an age of uncertainty and this is deadly for any current and firmly-held belief in what art, properly conceived, must consist.

So there you have it, Stephen. I wasn’t being sarcastic and wasn’t trolling, but I do think the topic is worth discussing. I hope you agree.

A pleasure as awlays.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Xenophilia (Feb. 21, 6:25PM)

Xeno, that was very disappointing from one who, one supposes, aspires to some degree of intellectual pre-eminence. Of course, the quotation in the cartoon was a degenerate spin-off from Henry Miller’s famous saying, “When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver.” However Miller stood as his own refutation, i.e., he advanced himself as a proponent of one who is “culture-free” but, as George Orwell rightly said (“Inside the Whale”), Miller was the “voice from the 3rd. class carriage.” First class or third class, culture is still culture.

You must do better next time, Xeno. We are, of course, still waiting to hear from Stephen.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Xenophilia (Feb. 21, 8:12PM)

“Being aware of this contemporary, ironic revisit to the statement…”

Good morning, dear. Just reading over your post and was a bit puzzled as to its meaning. Perhaps it’s the early hour (7:50AM) but I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the checkbook or the revolver and, secondly, just how it was “ironic.” As I say, I realize the failing is mine and, duly humble, I seek your tutelage.

Are you a fan of Henry Miller? I have been for years after reading his “Tropic of Cancer” about his hardscrabble years in the Paris of the 1930’s. I bought it in Paris some time ago, – yes sometime ago – and it blew me away. I still have it on my bookshelf. I subsequently read (or indeed have) all of his other stuff but most, in my view, never reached the heights (or depths) of “Tropic of Cancer.” (Possibly “Black Spring.”) However, as with my last post (“What is Art? III”), I think I would have difficulty in explaining just why this is so. I’ve always intended to visit his place on Big Sur (“Big Sur and Golden Apples of Hieronymous Bosch”) but, so far at least, have never made it. Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing your views on Miller if you have any.

Haven’t heard from Stephen yet. I imagine he’s beavering away preparing his masterpiece on the nature of art.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!